The NZ Herald Gay Marriage Poll discussion

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › The NZ Herald Gay Marriage Poll discussion

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 41

BDFL - Memuneh
79278 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#787715 27-Mar-2013 10:40

Klipspringer: And in 5 years time you will be saying, gay marriages are legal, so why allow the churches to discriminate and not allow a gay marriage in church.

Because a belief system shouldn't be making decisions for someone else's life that's not in that belief system.

The state is and should be neutral.

Giving rights to homosexuals do not take rights away from anyone else.

Someone's rights end where someone else's rights begin.

Where the state is not neutral in terms of religion we see fundamentalism showing its ugly head.

Replace "gay marriages" with "segregation" and you will see it's the same discussion.

I know someone with a gay son, who was extremely shocked when he found out. Not that it was overt, he didn't want to see the signs. But when it was "official" he freaked out. After years he realised the gay son was still the son he loved. He made peace with that. And his gay son now lives in a stable relationship with a divorced man (horror, shock) raising the 12 years old girl (horror, shock) from the partner's previous failed straight marriage.

They are doing a much better job than some segments of our citizenry who beat their kids, sending them to Starship hospital (when they get help) or just kill them after a drug and alcohol fueled night.

Just read about the number of straight couples that kill their kids in New Zealand and you will see that being straight doesn't mean being "normal".

Being "normal" is loving each other, accepting and understanding.

And this is my last intervention in this discussion.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787716 27-Mar-2013 10:44

freitasm:
Klipspringer: And in 5 years time you will be saying, gay marriages are legal, so why allow the churches to discriminate and not allow a gay marriage in church.

Because a belief system shouldn't be making decision for someone else's life that's not in that belief system.

The state is neutral and legislators should take decisions based on what the citizens want.

Giving rights to homosexuals do not take rights away from anyone else.

Someone's rights end where someone else's rights begin.

Where the state is not neutral in terms of religion we see fundamentalism showing its ugly head.

Replace "gay marriages" with "segregation" and you will see it's the same discussion.

I know someone with a gay son, who was extremely shocked when he found out. Not that it was overt, he didn't want to see the signs. But when it was "official" he freaked out. After years he realised the gay son was still the son he loved. He made peace with that. And his gay son now lives in a stable relationship with a divorced man (horror, shock) raising the 12 years old girl (horror, shock) from the partner's previous failed straight marriage.

They are doing a much better job than some segments of our citizenry who beat their kids, sending them to Starship hospital (when they get help) or just kill them after a drug and alcohol fueled night.

Just read about the number of straight couples that kill their kids in New Zealand and you will see that.

Dont see the point of your post. Why mention straight parents who kill/beat their kids etc.. Thats human nature for some people I'm afraid and its got absolutely nothing to do with being gay or not. Are gay couples less likely to do this? What are you implying here?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79278 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#787717 27-Mar-2013 10:48

It was going to be the last post...

I am implying that for those who previously brought the "think of the kids" to the discussion they have no basis at all to predict that gay couples would harm their kids, mentally or physically, any more than straight couples.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787718 27-Mar-2013 10:51

freitasm: It was going to be the last post...

I am implying that for those who previously brought the "think of the kids" to the discussion they have no basis at all to predict that gay couples would harm their kids, mentally or physically, any more than straight couples.

Its got absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and Im shocked really that you mentioned it.

If I had said something like that about Gay Parenting well then I would have been labeled a bigot and tis thread would have probably been closed.

One sided this whole gay marriage agenda thats what it is

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79278 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#787719 27-Mar-2013 10:52

Klipspringer: One sided this whole gay marriage agenda thats what it is

I could as well say "One sided this whole religious agenda thats what it is"

My point is that if we are discussing giving rights, then it's a good thing.

Bad thing would be discussing taking rights away.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787723 27-Mar-2013 11:03

freitasm:
Klipspringer: One sided this whole gay marriage agenda thats what it is

I could as well say "One sided this whole religious agenda thats what it is"

My point is that if we are discussing giving rights, then it's a good thing.

Bad thing would be discussing taking rights away.

Still not sure what rights the gay community is on about though.

Changing the definition of the word married in NZ is not about gay people suddenly being granted rights.

Giving gay couples the same rights under the current civil union is the answer to that one.

What extra "rights" are gay couples going to receive if the definition of marriage is changed instead of the current civil union?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79278 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#787726 27-Mar-2013 11:04

What rights are being taken away from you if the definition of marriage is changed instead of the current civil union?

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787732 27-Mar-2013 11:12

freitasm: What rights are being taken away from you if the definition of marriage is changed instead of the current civil union?

This bill is NOT about my rights. This is about Gay rights. What extra rights will gay couples receive if the defenition of marriage is changed instead of the existing civil union

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#787733 27-Mar-2013 11:14

Klipspringer:
freitasm: What rights are being taken away from you if the definition of marriage is changed instead of the current civil union?

This bill is NOT about my rights. This is about Gay rights. What extra rights will gay couples receive if the existing civil union is changed instead of the defenition of marriage.

I am struggling to understand? You aren't against gay people getting "married", receiving the same rights, so long as they use a word different to Marriage?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787734 27-Mar-2013 11:15

networkn:
Klipspringer:
freitasm: What rights are being taken away from you if the definition of marriage is changed instead of the current civil union?

This bill is NOT about my rights. This is about Gay rights. What extra rights will gay couples receive if the existing civil union is changed instead of the defenition of marriage.

I am struggling to understand? You aren't against gay people getting "married", receiving the same rights, so long as they use a word different to Marriage?

Sorry just edited my post, had that the wrong way round.

This bill is NOT about my rights. This is about Gay rights. What extra rights will gay couples receive if the defenition of marriage is changed instead of the existing civil union

But yes. Totally over the moon about it. They just can't use the word "marriage". Because in my opinion marriage is between man and woman.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79278 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#787735 27-Mar-2013 11:16

Klipspringer:
freitasm: What rights are being taken away from you if the definition of marriage is changed instead of the current civil union?

This bill is NOT about my rights. This is about Gay rights. What extra rights will gay couples receive if the defenition of marriage is changed instead of the existing civil union

Well, then. If it's not about your rights (or someone else's rights being taking away), I see no reason to be against it.

As I said, giving rights to human beings is always good.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787736 27-Mar-2013 11:20

freitasm:
Klipspringer:
freitasm: What rights are being taken away from you if the definition of marriage is changed instead of the current civil union?

This bill is NOT about my rights. This is about Gay rights. What extra rights will gay couples receive if the defenition of marriage is changed instead of the existing civil union

Well, then. If it's not about your rights (or someone else's rights being taking away), I see no reason to be against it.

As I said, giving rights to human beings is always good.

I agree with what you are saying.
But why change it if no rights are being gained by changing the definition of the word?

changing the definition of the word is not about "giving rights" or rights being gained?

"giving rights" can be done by changing the current civil union

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#787738 27-Mar-2013 11:22

Klipspringer:
freitasm:
Klipspringer:
freitasm: What rights are being taken away from you if the definition of marriage is changed instead of the current civil union?

This bill is NOT about my rights. This is about Gay rights. What extra rights will gay couples receive if the defenition of marriage is changed instead of the existing civil union

Well, then. If it's not about your rights (or someone else's rights being taking away), I see no reason to be against it.

As I said, giving rights to human beings is always good.

I agree with what you are saying.
But why change it if no rights are being gained by changing the definition of the word?

changing the definition of the word is not about "giving rights"

"giving rights" can be done by changing the current civil union

So again, you have no issue with what's happening you just don't want it called marriage?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#787739 27-Mar-2013 11:26

networkn:

So again, you have no issue with what's happening you just don't want it called marriage?

Spot on.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#787744 27-Mar-2013 11:31

Klipspringer:And in 5 years time you will be saying, gay marriages are legal, so why allow the churches to discriminate and not allow a gay marriage in church.

Slippery slope argument. logical fallacy

Twitter: ajobbins

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | ... | 41